After reading this entire post it seems that there is no change in the implementation of live view. I had wished that there would be. That is the real hurdle for Phase One.

Is it? Despite being as "bad" as it is, isn't it still the best when compared to the other medium format brands? And if we take DSLRs into the equation I'm sure live view is not the real hurdle that makes many people choose the DSLR -- it is the cost.

You'll never see really workable Live View unless MFDB manufacturers move to CMOS sensors. Is it desirable for them to do so, I don't know? Here's a little chip primer. The fact that P1 and Blad haven't switched tells me there must be great hurdles to implementing MFDB CMOS...

That chip primer is a bit old, and it is coming from one of the firms mainly producing CCDs.

My guess is that CCDs are manufactured in simple inexpensive processess. CMOS needs more precision, better fabs and more layers, because it has much more active components.

The article from DALSA gives some intresting insight:"First, leverage is key. At the risk of stating the obvious, imagers that are already on the market will cost much less than a full custom imager, regardless of whether it is a CMOS or a CCD imager. If customization is necessary, unless the change is minor, it is generally cheaper to develop a custom CCD than it is to develop a custom CMOS imager. CMOS imager development is generally more expensive because CMOS uses more expensive deep submicron masks. There is also much more circuitry to design in a CMOS device. As a result, even in applications where a custom CMOS imager clearly has better performance, the value proposition can still favor a custom CCD." So they say that small scale economics favor CCD, because it is simpler to manufacture.

Small sensor cameras were mostly CCD devices, it is only now that they convert to CMOS. DSLRs were mostly CCD and first with conversion to CMOS did they really get competitive. Early Nikons, Minoltas and so on used CCD devices, but once Sony and Nikon switched to CMOS development has been fast.

My guess is that the main reason MFDB vendors use CCD is availability of sensors in the corresponding sizes. That said, I still think they are excellent devices, and there is a lot of innovation in software and usability.

You'll never see really workable Live View unless MFDB manufacturers move to CMOS sensors. Is it desirable for them to do so, I don't know? Here's a little chip primer. The fact that P1 and Blad haven't switched tells me there must be great hurdles to implementing MFDB CMOS...

Yes, suffice it to say that DxO's definition of and method of measuring dynamic range is not the same as Phase One.

Hi,

You are wrong both;-) DxO actually gives a DR of 11.89 for the IQ 180, the higher figure is coming from DxO presenting data in "print mode" that is normalized to 8 mpixels. So an IQ 180 image scaled down to 8 MP would have a DR of 13.56. I don't know which DALSA senor the IQ180 uses and couldn't find the corresponding data sheet, but most modern DALSA sensors are about 70 DB which 11.6 EV, pretty close to the DxO figures.

If you get a Datasheet from DALSA I would expect it to say > 70 DB or even 71.3 DB (11.89 EV)-

I'm sure live view is not the real hurdle that makes many people choose the DSLR -- it is the cost.

I don't know the science behind these cameras, but I can see the results.

Personally I see a slight to major difference in color detail between ccd and cmos.

I don't or really care if it comes from format size, sensor, filter or lenses, I just see it.

Medium format seems less global in color that my 35mm colors, but that's not always good, depends on what you shoot, depends on the brand, depends on the post production.

If I'm going to dive deep into a file from my ccd cameras I will see every bit of slight discoloration in a face or skin, or even the whole scene.

That's the downside, but the upside is if I need all the colors to work a file deep then the ccd is easier for me to get there than cmos.

Not to go of topic but . . .

Man if you could just get the best of both formats, medium format and 35mm you'd probably really have something.

I tried the one camera fits all routine, for stills and for video and I don't think it's there.

Still cameras that really go to high speed like the Canon 1dx are much different in operation than a Nikon d800, much, much different than a digital back and much different than a dedicated digital video camera.

The bottom line to me is you can do just about everything with a 35mm cmos, camera, you just can't do everything perfectly.

When the Pentax came out, I thought finally medium format kind of woke up to the new realities professional photographers faced.

I've gone into a store to buy that camera 5 times and always walked off. Just two slow on write speeds and the new lenses are very expensive and there is no professional tethering option.

For some the write times won't matter, but next week we shoot for an apparel client on three locations, 29 set ups per day. Not 29 shots, 29 setups.

Given that this project is sunlight dependent, so 8 hours of shooting, if everything goes smooth. That's 17 minutes a session. Seriously 17 minutes.

Now add in the wait time on a Pentax previews along with the difficulty in tethering and if you lose 90 seconds to 2 minutes a session, that is 3 shots that don't get done.

Add the fact that almost every project we do requires some video and the compression of time is evident.

Add the cost of starting up with a new platform like the pentax and 4 new lenses and one body is slightly under 20 grand. With backup body add another 9.

Going to a new Phase back is nearly $40,000 using my current contax platform, and though the improvements of the IQ are attractive, $40,000 in todays world of every shrinking budgets is a lot and in my case, that doesn't improve my camera platform.

It doesn't take a genius to see why the d800 is attractive. I'd buy a d800 because I own all the new Nikon glass and the camera body compared to the costs I've just mentioned is virtually free. The problem I have is I don't think the look of the Nikon glass is very pretty.

(That's just a personal opinion).

To me the company that could rock the world is Pentax, if they up their game. I don't think they need a wholesale change, just a one step improvement in write speed, slightly better 800 to 1600 iso processing and a tethering solution that's robust.

Or maybe Leaf. If Leaf plays off the Phase tech and can come in at a better price point with the mamiya and Leaf all in one combination they have an opening.

Or, maybe Hasselblad if they take their 40mpx camera, amortize the price down to compete at Pentax levels, they could be a solution.

I couldn't have worked at that pace even with a girl with no clothes at all; it's a ticket to a pine box.

You have got to think about your health - both physical and mental - and hope that clients can come to their senses too. Nothing is worth having a client eat your health: they just get a new snapper, you can't get a new self. There's coffee out there - smell it before it's too late.

It seems Hasselblad prices go down, H4D-40 is now 15,999 at B&H, the price even includes a camera and a viewfinder. Also, you get a 20$ rebate on Photoshop Elements, that is a really good price!

If you feel that you need something exclusive there is the H4D-40 Ferrari Edition that ads some nice color and an 80/2.8 lens for a mere 13,500$ extra, the packaging is a very advanced one even if the camera is not.

I don't know the science behind these cameras, but I can see the results.

Personally I see a slight to major difference in color detail between ccd and cmos.

I don't or really care if it comes from format size, sensor, filter or lenses, I just see it.

Medium format seems less global in color that my 35mm colors, but that's not always good, depends on what you shoot, depends on the brand, depends on the post production.

If I'm going to dive deep into a file from my ccd cameras I will see every bit of slight discoloration in a face or skin, or even the whole scene.

That's the downside, but the upside is if I need all the colors to work a file deep then the ccd is easier for me to get there than cmos.

Not to go of topic but . . .

Man if you could just get the best of both formats, medium format and 35mm you'd probably really have something.

I tried the one camera fits all routine, for stills and for video and I don't think it's there.

Still cameras that really go to high speed like the Canon 1dx are much different in operation than a Nikon d800, much, much different than a digital back and much different than a dedicated digital video camera.

The bottom line to me is you can do just about everything with a 35mm cmos, camera, you just can't do everything perfectly.

When the Pentax came out, I thought finally medium format kind of woke up to the new realities professional photographers faced.

I've gone into a store to buy that camera 5 times and always walked off. Just two slow on write speeds and the new lenses are very expensive and there is no professional tethering option.

For some the write times won't matter, but next week we shoot for an apparel client on three locations, 29 set ups per day. Not 29 shots, 29 setups.

Given that this project is sunlight dependent, so 8 hours of shooting, if everything goes smooth. That's 17 minutes a session. Seriously 17 minutes.

Now add in the wait time on a Pentax previews along with the difficulty in tethering and if you lose 90 seconds to 2 minutes a session, that is 3 shots that don't get done.

Add the fact that almost every project we do requires some video and the compression of time is evident.

Add the cost of starting up with a new platform like the pentax and 4 new lenses and one body is slightly under 20 grand. With backup body add another 9.

Going to a new Phase back is nearly $40,000 using my current contax platform, and though the improvements of the IQ are attractive, $40,000 in todays world of every shrinking budgets is a lot and in my case, that doesn't improve my camera platform.

It doesn't take a genius to see why the d800 is attractive. I'd buy a d800 because I own all the new Nikon glass and the camera body compared to the costs I've just mentioned is virtually free. The problem I have is I don't think the look of the Nikon glass is very pretty.

(That's just a personal opinion).

To me the company that could rock the world is Pentax, if they up their game. I don't think they need a wholesale change, just a one step improvement in write speed, slightly better 800 to 1600 iso processing and a tethering solution that's robust.

Or maybe Leaf. If Leaf plays off the Phase tech and can come in at a better price point with the mamiya and Leaf all in one combination they have an opening.

Or, maybe Hasselblad if they take their 40mpx camera, amortize the price down to compete at Pentax levels, they could be a solution.

Is it? Despite being as "bad" as it is, isn't it still the best when compared to the other medium format brands? And if we take DSLRs into the equation I'm sure live view is not the real hurdle that makes many people choose the DSLR -- it is the cost.

Probably for some people. As far as I am concerned I would frankly still pick my D800 over a phase/hassy for landscape work... even if the backs were given to me free of charge.

That is the case without a single hesitation for images where stitching is doable, but probably also the case for generic landscape outings where many of my favourire images are shot in pre dawn light where my eyes simply cannot focus a camera accurately without the help of live view.

I've gone into a store to buy that camera 5 times and always walked off. Just two slow on write speeds and the new lenses are very expensive and there is no professional tethering option.....................

Hum... Focusing 4x5 optimally in low light with movements applied was already a nightmare even with the best GG and cameras featuring assymetric tilt, I am wondering how you guys do it with much higher density devices.

Pre-calibration is hardly a solution when tilt comes in the picture, which is the main value of tech cameras in my view.

Hey man, there are two ways to do life. Accept it or go home. I accept it and in a strange way kind of dig it, because our schedule separates the amateurs from the pros.

I have the best crew I've had in my career and they work with surgical precision. To complete what's coming up next week, we will never look hurried, never look panicked.

Anyway, I'm not retirement age and if I was I still wouldn't want to quit.

When I was 25 I had two billion photos in me and not enough time to do them.

Heck in a week I think of a million more.

Really the most stressful part of our life isn't shoot days.

Shoot days are like a vacation.

It's pre production, which is huge, post production which is huge, but behind that it's the biz and the politics.

Everyday I get a request for a file, a retouching change, a video edit, repurposing of data.

Then there gig your doing for an agency and the client gets involved, or the direct gig you have from the client and the agency gets involved.

Or the 4 revised estimates, (minimum), or the creative treatments you do six times (minimum).

Add to that we work everywhere so today I get a request from Australia for an edit (Sunday), last week I was doing concept changes at 4am (LA times with a client in Munich).

I'm not complaining cause I'm working and I like working.

I need purpose, I need a deadline, I need a reason.

The industry changed

I get it and changed with it, but it's not as bad as people think.

Just different.

IMO

BC

Bernhard,

If someone offers you a $40,000 back and you don't take it, give me a call.

29 setups a day and you call it a vacation..... sounds pretty miserable especially if your other days are worse.Is it really worth it? There is a lot more to life that photos. It's particularly ironic that quite a bit of what you shootis called lifestyle... happy relaxed people.

I second Rob's comment. No point ending up in a pine box even if you've worked so much that it's a mahoganybox instead of pine.

Personally I found my workaholic period to be my least productive period of my life. Dedicating a lot of time to differentthings makes all of them more enjoyable.

Each to his own... we all have our addictions... I kitesurfed a few to many hours today... it was bliss.. Malibu was beautifultoday from the Ocean. Well I'm off for my daily midnight hike in the Santa Monica Mountains. A half hour of ocean air before sleep.No client is going to keep me up till 4am. You know unless your client runs a sweat shop he'll be OK with you getting a bit of sleep.

29 setups a day and you call it a vacation..... sounds pretty miserable especially if your other days are worse.Is it really worth it? There is a lot more to life that photos. It's particularly ironic that quite a bit of what you shootis called lifestyle... happy relaxed people.

I second Rob's comment. No point ending up in a pine box even if you've worked so much that it's a mahoganybox instead of pine.

Personally I found my workaholic period to be my least productive period of my life. Dedicating a lot of time to differentthings makes all of them more enjoyable.

Each to his own... we all have our addictions... I kitesurfed a few to many hours today... it was bliss.. Malibu was beautifultoday from the Ocean. Well I'm off for my daily midnight hike in the Santa Monica Mountains. A half hour of ocean air before sleep.No client is going to keep me up till 4am. You know unless your client runs a sweat shop he'll be OK with you getting a bit of sleep.

Fred, that has to be the most inspirational comment I've ever seen you write and probably I've ever seen posted in this forum for as long as I can remember.

I feel BC's pain after just finishing a 2am finish followed by a 6:30am start.

BC. Simply Bravo. Why play small? Pursue your passion. It's a funny thing about photography..... You actually have to do it, to be good at it.

Fred. I would love to see some of your pictures from your "work-a-holic" period. Why don't you have a website? Why do you call BC's love of his art and dedication to his craft an addiction?

By the way... We all end up in a pine box. So why let fear control us? Why let our fears control how others run there lives?

And really taking midnite walks sounds lonely. Sounds really deep. Did you ever read about Buddhism? There is a tenet about...going to the mountaintop for enlightment. And it basically says that the enlightment you find on the mountaintop is that which you brought with you.

Each to his own... we all have our addictions... I kitesurfed a few to many hours today... it was bliss.. Malibu was beautifultoday from the Ocean. Well I'm off for my daily midnight hike in the Santa Monica Mountains. A half hour of ocean air before sleep.

The ground glass has got more bashing on this forum than it deserves. All it takes is a strong loupe and some confidence . Oh, well seriously, it can be a problem depending on your eyesight status, but I believe that more can work with it successfully than one might think. The biggest mistake I see is that people use too weak loupes. I use a 20x.

As a view camera user (Linhof Techno) I actually don't see the lack of live view to be that problematic for actual picture making. However the view camera would of course be more elegant and lighter (and cheaper) if I could ditch the sliding back and focus on the digital back directly.

As a feature I'd desire lower color cast more though, and I'm afraid that CMOS tech would push the performance in the exact opposite direction (not sure though).

It should also be said that part of the difficulty in focusing is not actually dimness or ground glass, but that the widest aperture is relatively small, i e an f/5.6 is harder to focus than a f/1.4 due to the softer focus peaking. That is a property that we cannot move away from as wide aperture lens designs would destroy many of the properties that makes up the quality of large format digital. So it will always be a bit more difficult to work with, but not *too* difficult.

Depends on the camera I´d sayOn the HCam You can use either Arcbody/SWC/Acumatte viewfinder adapter, or what I use now a Hy6 screen with Grid/split screen and very fine grain.Focusing is top exact with this and with the 4x loupe we provide with the camera the most exact I know till now.And as Torger already said: combined with the much brighter 35mm lenses 2,8/3,5 or even better you can hit focus absolutely on target.

BC. Simply Bravo. Why play small? Pursue your passion. It's a funny thing about photography..... You actually have to do it, to be good at it.

Fred. I would love to see some of your pictures from your "work-a-holic" period. Why don't you have a website? Why do you call BC's love of his art and dedication to his craft an addiction?

By the way... We all end up in a pine box. So why let fear control us? Why let our fears control how others run there lives?

And really taking midnite walks sounds lonely. Sounds really deep. Did you ever read about Buddhism? There is a tenet about...going to the mountaintop for enlightment. And it basically says that the enlightment you find on the mountaintop is that which you brought with you.

Regards,Jeffery

+1.

You've found your calling in life when work is play and play is work.

I'd rather do something I'm passionate about than struggle everyday----or gripe about something incessantly. When that happens, it's time to walk away. Nobody likes a nattering nay-bob of negativity.